AT&T and Verizon accused of using data roaming fees to overcharge everyone

AT&T and Verizon Wireless are extracting "monopoly rents" from competitors who pay them for data roaming, forcing smaller carriers to charge higher prices to their own subscribers, four public interest groups wrote in a filing with the Federal Communications Commission yesterday.

Further Reading

By making it difficult for carriers like T-Mobile US to lower prices or offer truly unlimited plans, the nation's two biggest carriers are also able to "charge artificially inflated prices to their own customers" and maintain strict data caps and overage fees, alleges the filing (PDF) by Public Knowledge, the Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation, the Benton Foundation, and Common Cause.

The groups are supporting T-Mobile's request for a ruling from the FCC to force AT&T and Verizon to negotiate lower rates. The T-Mobile petition asks for "prospective guidance and predictable enforcement criteria for determining whether the terms of any given data roaming agreement or proposal meet the 'commercially reasonable' standard adopted by the Commission in the Data Roaming Order [adopted in 2011]." T-Mobile's petition, filed in May, describes an ongoing dispute with AT&T and criticizes Verizon as well.

AT&T and Verizon oppose T-Mobile's request, saying that the market is working just fine as it is.

The consumer advocacy groups argue that the current state of affairs is hurting customers of all carriers. The groups wrote:

Despite (a) an enhanced revenue stream from data roaming agreements, and (b) lower costs than rivals by avoiding data roaming, Verizon and AT&T customers continue to pay inflated data costs due to capped plans and aggressive overage fees. Whatever Verizon and AT&T are doing with the additional revenue, they are not passing it along to consumers in the form of lower prices.

To the extent AT&T and Verizon can artificially increase the cost of data roaming for rivals, rendering aggressive price competition economically unfeasible, it does more than extract monopoly rents from competitors. It allows Verizon and AT&T to charge artificially inflated prices to their own customers as well. In this case, Verizon and AT&T maintain strict data caps and overage fees and are able to maintain these strategies by rendering truly unlimited plans for competitors economically unfeasible.

Action by the Commission to curb unreasonably high data roaming rates will therefore directly benefit all consumers, including customers of AT&T and Verizon. As we have seen demonstrated since T-Mobile adopted its aggressive 'uncarrier' strategy, competition benefits all consumers. Every pro-competitive move made by T-Mobile has triggered a response by AT&T and Verizon, benefiting all subscribers.

T-Mobile CEO John Legere has indicated in public statements that he would like to offer cheaper unlimited data plans. Given the past history of T-Mobile, including passing on the savings from negotiating lower international roaming rates to consumers as part of the its T-Mobile Global Data plan, it seems reasonable to assume that requiring AT&T and Verizon to negotiate commercially reasonable data roaming agreements will result in T-Mobile offering lower prices and uncapped and unthrottled plans—forcing AT&T and Verizon to lower their own data rates.

Why data isn’t really unlimited

T-Mobile's data plans are generally unlimited, but speeds are throttled after customers use up their 4G allotments.

T-Mobile's inability to offer unthrottled data has "severe negative impacts," the consumer advocacy groups wrote. "T-Mobile Senior Vice President Dirk Mosa states in his declaration that: '[w]hen throttling and cap limitations are removed, consumers use significantly more data, typically in the range of 10-20x.' Additionally, in a recent press release accompanying the launch of its 'Music Freedom' promotion, T-Mobile cited survey evidence that 37 percent of mobile users avoid streaming on their cell phones for fear of exhausting their data cap and incurring overage charges," they wrote.

Sprint is reportedly close to a deal to purchase T-Mobile, which would leave the US with just three major nationwide carriers.

T-Mobile's petition says that small carriers have reported problems, including "offers of wholesale data roaming rates many orders of magnitude higher than the offering carrier’s retail rates to its own data customers, delays of more than eight months to obtain even initial responses to roaming requests, requests for detailed long-term traffic projections and proposed hefty penalties for any resulting deviations from those projections, and testing procedures and queues that would drag on for undisclosed or indeterminate periods of time."

A survey by the Rural Broadband Association, which represents nearly 900 rural independent phone companies, found that 58 percent of respondents "identified 'negotiating roaming agreements' as a major area of concern and that 69 percent 'categorized their experience in negotiating data roaming and in-market roaming agreements with other carriers as moderately to extremely difficult,'" according to T-Mobile.

T-Mobile's filing shows that the prices it pays per bit for data roaming within the US have gone down substantially in the past six years, although the amount of data paid for has gone up as well:

Still, "the average domestic wholesale data roaming rate that T-Mobile paid in 2013 is 3.6 times the maximum retail rate that Verizon charges a user of 1,700 MB per month, six times the rate AT&T charges, over seven times the rate that T-Mobile charges, and over 10 times Sprint’s maximum rate," T-Mobile wrote. "Similarly the average domestic wholesale roaming rate that T-Mobile paid in 2013 is more than 10 times the average rate that T-Mobile charged MVNOs [mobile virtual network operators] during that year."

AT&T's prices get a specific callout in T-Mobile's petition. Because of AT&T's high rates, "T-Mobile typically only roams on AT&T’s network where AT&T provides the only available network," the petition says. T-Mobile is losing money with some customers "simply by virtue of T-Mobile providing the customers with roaming service on AT&T’s network even as they are throttled and capped to contain costs."

"Additionally, in several instances we have been told by other roaming partners that they cannot offer T-Mobile better rates due to AT&T’s aggressive use of Most Favored Nations ('MFN') clauses in its roaming contracts," T-Mobile wrote. "Under MFNs, a carrier is prohibited from offering lower rates to other partners (such as T-Mobile) without facing a substantial decrease in inbound roaming traffic from AT&T or the need to substantially lower their price for a large volume of inbound roaming traffic—a choice that results in many carriers deciding to keep the higher roaming price. AT&T’s leverage of its 'must-have' status via MFNs keeps prices unreasonably high for competitors such as T-Mobile."

AT&T and Verizon don’t want any changes

AT&T wrote in a filing yesterday that "the balanced approach adopted in the Data Roaming Order is working and further commission action is unnecessary" and also that "T-Mobile’s proposed 'clarifications' are really an attempt to rewrite the data roaming order and undo the careful balance underlying the data roaming regime."

AT&T argues that the FCC's Data Roaming Order from 2011 "is clear that rates in existing, unchallenged contracts are presumptively reasonable." To support that claim, AT&T describes the order's handling of data roaming disputes. When there is a dispute, the order says the commission should consider factors including "whether the providers involved have had previous data roaming arrangements with similar terms.”

"In other words, the Data Roaming Order is already clear that existing agreements are not only relevant but presumptively reasonable, and that it would be T-Mobile’s burden in any future proceeding to show that the terms of existing agreements are unreasonable or irrelevant," AT&T said.

Verizon made a similar argument and also said that "T-Mobile should use the remedies provided in the data roaming order to resolve its dispute with AT&T."

The pricing benchmarks proposed by T-Mobile are inappropriate, Verizon wrote. "The Commission has previously rejected linking roaming rates to the rates for other services due to concerns that doing so could create incentives to raise the prices for those other services and diminish incentives to invest in network improvement and expansion," Verizon wrote.

T-Mobile proposes that the commission consider four benchmarks in determining whether a deal is commercially reasonable: whether the wholesale data roaming rate greatly exceeds the retail price of data; whether the domestic rates substantially exceed roaming rates charged to foreign carriers when their customers roam in the US; whether the rates substantially exceed the prices charged to MVNOs; and how the rates compare to other competitively negotiated wholesale roaming rates. For that last one, T-Mobile says the FCC should take into account "that some prevailing roaming rates may reflect the past exercise of market power or attempts to weaken retail rivals."

The consumer interest groups argue that the FCC can impose these benchmarks without declaring cellular companies to be "common carriers" because the benchmarks "do not rise to the level of requiring carriers to treat all requests for data roaming identically."

Why don't they just offer truly unlimited data without a roaming option?

Seems silly to say "we can't offer unlimited data because AT&T won't let us roam cheaply", when they could easily offer a plan without roaming and call out AT&T..

If you look back ~20 years, domestic voice roaming at higher rates was a common feature of phone plans. The problem was that history has shown consumers utterly hated roaming charges both for the higher costs and the surprise factor involved, so the carriers are loathe to overtly bring back roaming rules in any form. (Which isn't to say they don't continue to do so behind the scenes and won't cancel your contract if you use too much of it.)

" 'clarifications' are really an attempt to rewrite the data roaming order and undo the careful balance underlying the data roaming regime"

So...what you're really saying is that T-mobile is trying to disrupt the careful balance that AT&T and Verizon have designed in their contracts to limit the ability of market forces to lower data roaming prices?

I agree that is exactly what T-mobile is trying to do. Such careful balances shouldn't even have input from entities that have no interest beyond profits, much less be created by them.

One thing I'd like to see Ars do an article on is the preposterous way major carriers bill for mobile data in the post-unlimited data era.

First of all, if I'm to be charged $X per GB of data on a monthly basis, then why should any unused data be taken away from me at the end of the month? Rollover shouldn't be a feature, it should be a legal requirement based on the very principles of commerce. Now that most carriers have commoditized data, they can't have it both ways and pretend it's just "fluff" to be swept away from my account at the end of every billing cycle. If there is no lost value in what they take away in the form of unused data, then there was no value in the first place. If there is value there, then taking it away is stealing.

I can only speak to my provider (Verizon), but they charge more for data overage than if you had signed up for that amount of data in the first place, which makes for a completely pointless game of trying to guess how much data one will need for the following month. Every 2GB costs an additional $10, unless you went 2GB over your plan which will cost you $20. This act of "going over my quota" has ZERO financial repercussions for Verizon which makes the very concept of a data overage fee (beyond what that data would have cost in the first place) ridiculous.

Either unused data should rollover to subsequent months, or data should be charged at a flat rate without completely arbitrary tiers and associated overage penalties.

AT&T and Verizon oppose T-Mobile's request, saying that the market is working just fine as it is.

Even absent any specific evidence of problems with the market, like the presence of MFN clauses in contracts, it's difficult to imagine such a market working properly. A properly operating market does not happen automatically, it depends on competition, low barriers to entry, and information about pricing and options. The cellular market is highly distorted, with high barriers to entry and a few powerful companies controlling disproportionate segments. It would be amazing if it actually worked.

I often wonder what would happen if we could force the various wireless companies to collaborate on building a single, nationwide, physical infrastructure (service for all, everywhere). There would be one cell tower per area, built by any one of the providers and shared, equally, by all of them.

The only difference between VZW, ATT, Sprint and Tmobile would be who billed you for the service plan you selected. The infrastructure carrying your call would be the same, regardless of your carrier.

The advantage would be (potentially) 3x the area covered, and the operators would have to compete on service, and cooperate on infrastructure improvement.

Shocking - it's shocking, I say, that a monopoly corporation would extract monopoly rents from its exclusive resource and use its exclusive access to hinder competitors in an anticompetitive way. No one could have seen this coming. Especially not the poor people in the SCOTUS, Congress, White House, or at the regulatory agencies. Libertarians are excluded from this list, because for them, this is working as designed.

" 'clarifications' are really an attempt to rewrite the data roaming order and undo the careful balance underlying the data roaming regime"

So...what you're really saying is that T-mobile is trying to disrupt the careful balance that AT&T and Verizon have designed in their contracts to limit the ability of market forces to lower data roaming prices?

I agree that is exactly what T-mobile is trying to do. Such careful balances shouldn't even have input from entities that have no interest beyond profits, much less be created by them.

Why don't they just offer truly unlimited data without a roaming option?

Seems silly to say "we can't offer unlimited data because AT&T won't let us roam cheaply", when they could easily offer a plan without roaming and call out AT&T..

If you look back ~20 years, domestic voice roaming at higher rates was a common feature of phone plans. The problem was that history has shown consumers utterly hated roaming charges both for the higher costs and the surprise factor involved, so the carriers are loathe to overtly bring back roaming rules in any form. (Which isn't to say they don't continue to do so behind the scenes and won't cancel your contract if you use too much of it.)

AT&T and Verizon oppose T-Mobile's request, saying that the market is working just fine as it is.

Even absent any specific evidence of problems with the market, like the presence of MFN clauses in contracts, it's difficult to imagine such a market working properly. A properly operating market does not happen automatically, it depends on competition, low barriers to entry, and information about pricing and options. The cellular market is highly distorted, with high barriers to entry and a few powerful companies controlling disproportionate segments. It would be amazing if it actually worked.

Round and round it goes... Never ending battle between consumer and government allowed monopolies.

The wireless spectrum is a physically exclusive resource. If one person uses it, someone else can't. Math merely increases how many people can use it before no more can.

There are physical constraints to the services such as spectrum. The problem here is the imaginary constraints imposed by things like contractual agreements that have exclusivity rules that shouldn't even be a legal option to require/ensure worse agreements to occur to competitors. Just because it isn't explicitly stated, and instead based on some dynamic variable such that it is a 'carefully balanced' decision, it doesn't make it acceptable.

One concern is AT&T and VZW getting away with maintaining their current rates based on a claim of "grandfathering." There's as hint of that, late in the article. It isn't the main focus, but might be more of a concern than the result of a more open and adversarial process, as opposed to the processing of a claim of precedent.

I wish T-Mo and the smaller operators well, but am not overly optimistic.

Why don't they just offer truly unlimited data without a roaming option?

Seems silly to say "we can't offer unlimited data because AT&T won't let us roam cheaply", when they could easily offer a plan without roaming and call out AT&T..

That works fine in big cities, for those who don't travel much. I just visited an area in upstate NY where the only 4G is Verizon. ATT has 3G and for the other carriers, you'd need to roam on either Verizon or ATT, or have no service at all.

I think the clearest evidence of that is the fact that Verizon even publicly commented on the dispute between T-Mobile and AT&T in the first place. That alone says to me that there's something else there.

One thing I'd like to see Ars do an article on is the preposterous way major carriers bill for mobile data in the post-unlimited data era.

First of all, if I'm to be charged $X per GB of data on a monthly basis, then why should any unused data be taken away from me at the end of the month? Rollover shouldn't be a feature, it should be a legal requirement based on the very principles of commerce. Now that most carriers have commoditized data, they can't have it both ways and pretend it's just "fluff" to be swept away from my account at the end of every billing cycle. If there is no lost value in what they take away in the form of unused data, then there was no value in the first place. If there is value there, then taking it away is stealing.

I can only speak to my provider (Verizon), but they charge more for data overage than if you had signed up for that amount of data in the first place, which makes for a completely pointless game of trying to guess how much data one will need for the following month. Every 2GB costs an additional $10, unless you went 2GB over your plan which will cost you $20. This act of "going over my quota" has ZERO financial repercussions for Verizon which makes the very concept of a data overage fee (beyond what that data would have cost in the first place) ridiculous.

Either unused data should rollover to subsequent months, or data should be charged at a flat rate without completely arbitrary tiers and associated overage penalties.

I often wonder what would happen if we could force the various wireless companies to collaborate on building a single, nationwide, physical infrastructure (service for all, everywhere). There would be one cell tower per area, built by any one of the providers and shared, equally, by all of them.

The only difference between VZW, ATT, Sprint and Tmobile would be who billed you for the service plan you selected. The infrastructure carrying your call would be the same, regardless of your carrier.

The advantage would be (potentially) 3x the area covered, and the operators would have to compete on service, and cooperate on infrastructure improvement.

I can dream...

Problem is your dream (Shared by many, myself included) scares the incumbents shitless and they are more than willing to hand out tons of money to whoever they deem necessary to stop it from ever becoming a reality.

Why don't they just offer truly unlimited data without a roaming option?

Seems silly to say "we can't offer unlimited data because AT&T won't let us roam cheaply", when they could easily offer a plan without roaming and call out AT&T..

That's basically what what you get with a lot of the MVNOs. I know my Virgin Mobile phone (Sprint Network) won't roam to Verizon for this very reason. It means that I can't make calls when I visit my parents, or use data outside their house. That's a trade off I'm willing to make, some people aren't. I'm more annoyed by the limited phone options than by the roaming restrictions.

(When I go there I take an old Verizon flip phone just in case I need to call 911 - last I knew they had to accept the call even without a contract)

Why don't they just offer truly unlimited data without a roaming option?

Seems silly to say "we can't offer unlimited data because AT&T won't let us roam cheaply", when they could easily offer a plan without roaming and call out AT&T..

Because the smaller companies (read Sprint and T-Mobile) don't have the coverage that AT&T and Verizon have. That makes it difficult for the smaller companies to compete if they try to offer cheaper plans sans roaming.

I often wonder what would happen if we could force the various wireless companies to collaborate on building a single, nationwide, physical infrastructure (service for all, everywhere). There would be one cell tower per area, built by any one of the providers and shared, equally, by all of them.

The only difference between VZW, ATT, Sprint and Tmobile would be who billed you for the service plan you selected. The infrastructure carrying your call would be the same, regardless of your carrier.

The advantage would be (potentially) 3x the area covered, and the operators would have to compete on service, and cooperate on infrastructure improvement.

I can dream...

You mean letting the very body, the government, who is generally inept in all things over see 1 option? Lets just ask the Veterans how they like that, oh ya oops. Perhaps a better and more prudent option is remove the regulations that $VZW and $T lobbied for to block actual competition. Contrary to what most people think we do not have REAL competition in this country for telecommunication services.

T-Mobile, only since John Legere's uncarrier revolution really gets this. Its much easier to remove all rules and let the market have a free for all. Rather than reassemble the old Bell system. Competition is the cure to the need for net neutrality. If bad PR can cause tremendous financial loss, ie Duck Dynasty, Donald Sterling (the clippers), Paula Dean, Oprah, etc then imagine if Comcast (enter any ISP) had to actually worry about the plethora of dick moves it consistently makes.

Wait... that was the year Verizon stopped offering true unlimited data to customers and enforced broadband caps and huge overage charges in July-August of the same year. What exactly does that order say?

Round and round it goes... Never ending battle between consumer and government allowed monopolies.

The wireless spectrum is a physically exclusive resource. If one person uses it, someone else can't. Math merely increases how many people can use it before no more can.

There are physical constraints to the services such as spectrum. The problem here is the imaginary constraints imposed by things like contractual agreements that have exclusivity rules that shouldn't even be a legal option to require/ensure worse agreements to occur to competitors. Just because it isn't explicitly stated, and instead based on some dynamic variable such that it is a 'carefully balanced' decision, it doesn't make it acceptable.

Maybe the FCC should dictate that any unused spectrum during a given time slice be made available to competitors equipment and force tower sharing.

I think the clearest evidence of that is the fact that Verizon even publicly commented on the dispute between T-Mobile and AT&T in the first place. That alone says to me that there's something else there.

Verizon is commenting because T-Mobile wants to change the interpretation of roaming regulations in a way that will directly affect Verizon's roaming agreements with Sprint and other companies. All cellular companies are affected by FCC regulations, so of course they will all have individual interests in debates concerning them. No collusion/conspiracy required.

Why don't they just offer truly unlimited data without a roaming option?

Seems silly to say "we can't offer unlimited data because AT&T won't let us roam cheaply", when they could easily offer a plan without roaming and call out AT&T..

If you look back ~20 years, domestic voice roaming at higher rates was a common feature of phone plans. The problem was that history has shown consumers utterly hated roaming charges both for the higher costs and the surprise factor involved, so the carriers are loathe to overtly bring back roaming rules in any form. (Which isn't to say they don't continue to do so behind the scenes and won't cancel your contract if you use too much of it.)

Arguably, making a call is different than data..

Regardless:

I'd pay for a truly unlimited plan that was limited to T-Mobile towers only...

So would, most, everyone that lives in a rual area that has a T-Mobil tower but has to get their internet through DSL or, even worse, dial-up...

One tower in a small town could make money for T-Mobil.

I believe it is just a convenient truth to the narrative: "we (T-Mobil) are cool and would be cooler if not for those other two, evil, companies; we would be unlimited" ...

While the carriers all price data at a flat rate regardless of where in the country you're at to keep billing understandable and predictable for consumers, the cost of providing an MB of data is not the same everywhere in the country. All 4 carriers have reasonably good coverage in more populous areas where there are large numbers of people within each tower's footprint to cover the cost of building it and where well build up wired network infrastructure makes connecting the towers to the internet relatively inexpensive. ATT and VZW have also spent a lot of money building towers in sparely populated areas that have far fewer customers (or potential customers) per tower and which are more likely to be in areas where there isn't an existing wired network to tie into forcing them to run miles of new fiber (or coax) to connect the towers.

Between the higher construction costs and fewer customers to spread the cost over, the per MB send/received costs for these towers is much higher than for those in the cities. Selling data to customers at the same rate as in built up areas makes most of these towers money losers if looked at individually. The reason the two carriers spend so much money on them is that as loss leaders they work quite well because a lot of people are willing to pay a bit more for fewer service outages.

The reason I'm confident that a lot of the towers in areas where ATT/VZW have coverage but Sprint/TMobile are loss leaders is that if they did cover enough customers to pay for themselves from the people who lived/worked there Sprint and TMobile would have built their own towers in those areas because they'd be able to pay for themselves.

Ending Devils advocate mode.

I'm not going to try and defend MFN clauses. They're frequently used abusively and this appears to be a case where they should be stomped on. I also think that putting huge penalties in the contracts if Sprint/TMobile guess wrong on exactly how much their customers are going to roam smells rotten (OTOH if they're charging a flat rate instead of a per MB rate and TMobile/etc customers ended up using far more roaming data than was expected when the contract was negotiated I'll start throwing tomatoes the other direction).

That said, I wouldn't have a problem with VZW/ATT charging more to roam on towers where their cost/MB is high than on ones where it's low as long as it's proportional to the higher costs that the towers actually posses. Verizon and ATT subsidize the cost of the network build out in those areas across their entire customer base; TMobile and Sprint don't have any reasonable right to share in the subsidy paid by rival networks customers.

AT&T and Verizon oppose T-Mobile's request, saying that the market is working just fine as it is.

Even absent any specific evidence of problems with the market, like the presence of MFN clauses in contracts, it's difficult to imagine such a market working properly. A properly operating market does not happen automatically, it depends on competition, low barriers to entry, and information about pricing and options. The cellular market is highly distorted, with high barriers to entry and a few powerful companies controlling disproportionate segments. It would be amazing if it actually worked.

I think you forgot the most important factor to a working market is regulation. Otherwise corporations by design are greedy and will use any means they can to maximize profits, anything.

Why don't they just offer truly unlimited data without a roaming option?

Seems silly to say "we can't offer unlimited data because AT&T won't let us roam cheaply", when they could easily offer a plan without roaming and call out AT&T..

If you look back ~20 years, domestic voice roaming at higher rates was a common feature of phone plans. The problem was that history has shown consumers utterly hated roaming charges both for the higher costs and the surprise factor involved, so the carriers are loathe to overtly bring back roaming rules in any form. (Which isn't to say they don't continue to do so behind the scenes and won't cancel your contract if you use too much of it.)

Arguably, making a call is different than data..

I'd argue that the difference is that most people can make a reasonable estimate of how long a voice call will take and thus how much extra paying roaming rates would cost; but very few people have a clue how much data browsing a specific website or running a specific app for several minutes will use.

Why don't they just offer truly unlimited data without a roaming option?

Seems silly to say "we can't offer unlimited data because AT&T won't let us roam cheaply", when they could easily offer a plan without roaming and call out AT&T..

That's basically what what you get with a lot of the MVNOs. I know my Virgin Mobile phone (Sprint Network) won't roam to Verizon for this very reason. It means that I can't make calls when I visit my parents, or use data outside their house. That's a trade off I'm willing to make, some people aren't. I'm more annoyed by the limited phone options than by the roaming restrictions.

(When I go there I take an old Verizon flip phone just in case I need to call 911 - last I knew they had to accept the call even without a contract)

You don't need to carry the verizon flip phone. About 10 years ago, I called 911 once when I was in the middle of nowhere and my phone said I had no service just to see what happened. It actually connected somehow and I quickly explained why I called, we bid each other "Good day", and that was that. I'm not sure how that happened but I'm now confident I can call 911 from anywhere with any phone.

..Between the higher construction costs and fewer customers to spread the cost over, the per MB send/received costs for these towers is much higher than for those in the cities. Selling data to customers at the same rate as in built up areas makes most of these towers money losers if looked at individually. The reason the two carriers spend so much money on them is that as loss leaders they work quite well because a lot of people are willing to pay a bit more for fewer service outages.

.. I wouldn't have a problem with VZW/ATT charging more to roam on towers where their cost/MB is high than on ones where it's low as long as it's proportional to the higher costs that the towers actually posses. Verizon and ATT subsidize the cost of the network build out in those areas across their entire customer base; TMobile and Sprint don't have any reasonable right to share in the subsidy paid by rival networks customers.

Question - why are you measuring costs for hardware in amount of data sent? The costs in building the towers are sunk - there is no additional cost to the carrier for pushing a meg in one location vs pushing a meg in another (regardless of what they might want you to think). Sure towers in some locations might cost more to service due to local political situation, environment, and so on, but that has precisely jack and squat to do with how much data is being sent around.

The only reason we have per-amount-of-data billing is because it's a convenient metric to extract profits from.

Why don't they just offer truly unlimited data without a roaming option?

Seems silly to say "we can't offer unlimited data because AT&T won't let us roam cheaply", when they could easily offer a plan without roaming and call out AT&T..

That's basically what what you get with a lot of the MVNOs. I know my Virgin Mobile phone (Sprint Network) won't roam to Verizon for this very reason. It means that I can't make calls when I visit my parents, or use data outside their house. That's a trade off I'm willing to make, some people aren't. I'm more annoyed by the limited phone options than by the roaming restrictions.

(When I go there I take an old Verizon flip phone just in case I need to call 911 - last I knew they had to accept the call even without a contract)

You don't need to carry the verizon flip phone. About 10 years ago, I called 911 once when I was in the middle of nowhere and my phone said I had no service just to see what happened. It actually connected somehow and I quickly explained why I called, we bid each other "Good day", and that was that. I'm not sure how that happened but I'm now confident I can call 911 from anywhere with any phone.

All cell phones (in the U.S.) will make a 911 call if it can connect to a tower.....

Regardless if its locked, locked-down, on a black-list....

*edit

although GSM phones without a sim (an invalid sim card will still make the call) card may not..